Tuesday's Debate Could Be Last Chance To Knock Out Trump
The fifth Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle will take place tomorrow night. With less than two months to go before the voters finally get their chance to weigh in, this may be the last chance any of the other Republican contenders have of knocking Donald Trump out of first place. For many of the candidates on stage, Tuesday may be their last chance at remaining even slightly relevant to the race. There will also be a fierce battle for second place between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. All of this adds up to a fairly important night, and with Donald Trump at center stage once again, also likely an entertaining one.
Let's take these dynamics one at a time, beginning with the man who has led the Republican polling for six straight months, and then work our way down to the candidates in the depths of desperation.
Trump approaching unstoppable status
The most recent national poll just out is probably an outlier, but even so it has to be sobering for Republicans everywhere. Donald Trump -- if the poll can be believed, of course -- now holds the support of a commanding 41 percent of the Republican electorate. His closest competitor is Ted Cruz, with only 14 percent support. That is barely over one-third of Trump's support, and only one other candidate (Marco Rubio) even managed to break 10 percent.
Other polls put the national race much closer, however. The previous poll released (by a different organization) showed Trump at only 27 percent support, with Cruz nipping at his heels with 22 percent. That is one heck of a lot closer, obviously. But both of these polls are likely at the two ends of the margin of error. Trump's support is probably somewhere in the low 30s right now, and Cruz likely lands in the high teens.
No matter how you slice the numbers, Trump still leads the pack by a goodly margin. But a closer examination of the polling done over the last six months or so (using the chart from the Real Clear Politics Republican tracking page) shows something interesting which hasn't gotten much attention yet. Trump's polling average almost always goes down right after a debate. And this is pretty much the only times his average has gone down. To put this into strategic terms, the best possible chance of knocking Trump off his game will come tomorrow night.
To be sure, there will be other debates. The next one comes mid-January, less than three weeks before Iowa, and then there will be another debate in early February just before New Hampshire votes. But if Trump has locked in a hard core of supporters before then, it may not matter if the next two debates do him a minor amount of damage.
Trump's track record, so far, is that he loses a chunk of support immediately following almost every debate. This slump continues for a few weeks, and then Trump's support climbs back up, often higher than where he started from. After the first debate, in August, Trump went from 24.3 percent support down to 22.0 percent. The second debate was Trump's worst night of the campaign so far, as he saw his polling slide from 30.5 to 22.8 percent (a loss of 7.7 percent) after his performance. This was the biggest polling loss Trump has yet seen during the entire campaign.
The third debate wasn't as rough for Trump, as his numbers only slid from 27.0 down to 24.6, but it also represented the biggest threat to Trump's dominance, as Ben Carson -- very briefly -- actually led Trump in average polling, in the aftermath of the debate.
The fourth debate, however, had little or no impact on Trump's numbers. He only went down a half a point, from 24.8 to 24.3. The fourth debate absolutely devastated Ben Carson, though, whose numbers tumbled from 24.4 down to 12.6 (today's average) -- and still falling.
Right now, Trump is polling at his highest point of the entire campaign. His average is 31.4 percent. That's got to be scaring the daylights out of all the other candidates in the race. But the takeaway point for them is that pretty much the only time Trump's numbers fall a significant amount is right after debates. Until two weeks ago, the only downward spikes anywhere on Trump's chart were happened in the aftermaths of the debates.
The other campaigns are likely aware of this, which is why Trump is going to be the number one target tomorrow night. Whether it'll inflict major damage on Trump or not remains to be seen. At this point the only way the Republican Party avoids Trump as nominee is to have Ted Cruz win Iowa and then someone like Christie or Kasich win New Hampshire. If Trump wins either of the two first states, he may well become unstoppable. Which is why tomorrow night is going to be so important. The next two debates may be too late to inflict any meaningful damage on Trump. If Trump's numbers don't dip significantly and then continue to rise after tomorrow night, the nomination race may be pretty much over, folks.
Cruz versus Rubio
If you look at just the past couple of polls, it would seem there are three serious contenders for second place. But, alas, Ben Carson's position is not static, as his poll numbers have been falling off a cliff since the focus turned to foreign policy. So whatever residual support Carson still holds is precisely the target of the two men who actually do have a shot at becoming the "anti-Trump" in the race. As Carson's audience bleeds away, they are migrating to both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio; although at this point (especially in Iowa), it seems that Cruz is doing a much better job of picking them up than Rubio. But both candidates are wooing the voters deserting Carson, so neither one of them is likely to attack Carson openly -- if they're smart, they'll largely ignore Carson altogether. Either that, or offer Carson a helping of pity (which would be even more subtle than ignoring him).
We've already had some sniping between the two real second-place competitors. Rubio and Cruz are both trying to make the other look weak on national security. Rubio is hitting Cruz for his "party outsider" stances on things like N.S.A. phone surveillance and military budgets. Cruz is hitting Rubio for his stance on immigration, among other things.
Other than attacks on Donald Trump, these two are going to be the biggest targets of tomorrow evening. In fact, the other candidates on the stage might choose to attack Rubio and Cruz rather than face the furnace-blast of Trump's disdain. Cruz and Rubio are two of the only candidates who have been helped by their past debate performances, though, so it'll be interesting to see which one of them emerges victorious from a head-to-head competition.
Everyone else exuding the sour stench of desperation
Everyone else on the stage tomorrow night will be desperate. None of their campaigns has caught fire, and two of the remaining candidates (soon to be joined by Ben Carson) have watched their poll numbers sink from respectable status to below five percent support nationally. Carly Fiorina was a flash in the pan, reaping a big spike of support for two good debate performances only to see it then wither away, perhaps when voters realized that "I can be the angriest towards Hillary Clinton" was the only arrow in Carly's quiver. For whatever reason, she's now an afterthought or a sideshow, at best.
And then there's Jeb Bush. For all the arguments about how corrosive money is on American democracy and politics, sometimes all the money in the world isn't worth a thing when the voters just flat-out reject your candidate. Actually, Carly Fiorina's Senate campaign was another good example of this. But Jeb Bush seems destined to be a textbook example of how sometimes throwing a bunch of money at a campaign does no good whatsoever.
Bush has spent an obscene amount of money on the race so far -- his super PAC alone has laid out 50 million dollars, while watching Bush's poll numbers sink below the waves. Tomorrow night may be Bush's last chance at even having a small influence on the nomination race. At this point, he truly has nothing left to lose, so we'll see what the flopsweat of desperation leads Bush to attempt in the debate. Maybe he'll come out swinging for Trump, Cruz, and Rubio! Then again, maybe he's simply incapable of successfully doing so. His previous debate performances certainly didn't do him any good, whether he was trying to attack or trying to play nice. But Bush knows this is really his last shot, so it'll be interesting to see what he comes up with. Even if he does score some major attacks against those with much better polls numbers, though, it's hard to picture Bush doing much better in the polling himself afterwards. Stranger things have happened in politics, but I'd be surprised if Bush suddenly sprang back into contention, personally.
Pretty much everyone else on the stage will be irrelevant to the nomination race, although they'll all be striving hard to utter that one memorable line that will boost their candidacy back to life. There's a pack of desperate candidates that somehow weaseled their way back onto the main stage, all of whom truly deserve to be relegated to the "kids' table" pre-debate. Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Rand Paul will all be on the main stage, and they'll all be wildly punching at the top three frontrunners. Will any of them land a blow? Well, that's what everyone will be watching to see, of course. But all three candidates are in the same unenviable position as Bush, since no matter how cleverly they take down one of the frontrunners, it's highly unlikely that they reap a big bonanza in the polls for doing so.
Christie and Kasich will be fighting for one reason alone: because they think they have a shot at winning New Hampshire, which will then launch them nationally into the frontrunner ranks. Both have concentrated on the state with laser-like focus, and both will likely do much better there than their national polling would indicate. Longshots do win in New Hampshire, and sometimes this does begin to snowball with voters in other states. So look for both Christie and Kasich to focus tomorrow on issues important to New Hampshire voters (like heroin addiction, for instance).
In conclusion, tomorrow night's debate will have three clear targets: Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. Ben Carson will likely be ignored (since he's not much of a threat anymore). Cruz and Rubio will likely spend much of their time attacking each other rather than Trump, and the rest of the pack is so desperate that they could attempt just about anything. If Trump isn't damaged significantly tomorrow night, however, he's going to become the clear favorite to win the Republican nomination outright.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Hey CW
There's been some pushback by establishment Repubs to the rabid Muslim bashing, so it will be interesting if that challenge to the base (no pun intended) continues onstage or remains relegated to venues where it doesn't alienate the frothy faced masses.
The Trumpon walking back his clampdown bit by exempting wealthy Muslims who want to stay at his hotels, like a typical Repub hypocrite and class warrior, will of course go unchallenged. Because, despite the massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, wealthy Muslims (cough, cough Saudis etc.) are never up to no good or actively involved in aiding our enemies, right?
A
I think ya'all can give up hope for a TRUMP implosion... :D
Ya'all have consistently misjudged the American people and what they really want...
As I have said before, NO CANDIDATE can win without the INDEPENDENT/NPA vote...
And those votes are swinging 4-1 for Trump...
Michale
405
Michale: Do you have any sources for your 4-1 claim?
Here is the latest poll that includes independents
"Against Trump, the Democratic front-runner would win 50 percent to 40 percent. Among independents, she would capture 43 percent of the vote, compared to 36 percent for Trump. Among Hispanics, Clinton would get 69 percent of the vote, compared to just 24 percent for Trump."
Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/15564%20NBCWSJ%20December%20Poll%20(AM%2012-14-15%20Release).pdf
MSNBC??
'nuff said... :D
Michale
407
I could quote Limbaugh and Brietbart..
Would you buy that?? :D
Michale
408
Do you want me to answer that?
Do you want me to answer that?
heh
Michale
409
Indeed.
There seem to be two propositions in this column.
The first is that Trump is approaching unstoppable status. In other words, he will win the nomination. I still think this is unlikely, but not impossible.
The second is that most, or at least a lot, of the Republican field will drop out after the next debate. This DOES seem highly likely to me. "Sour stench of desperation" is about right.
I'm upload the rest of this in chunks, due to multiple links and recent problems with the ol' spam filter. I'm also locking the cats out of the office, since The Tabby has recently discovered how much fun it is to play with my laser driven mouse and trigger finger.
MSNBC??
'nuff said... :D
How about the same poll numbers from the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/NBCWSJDecemberPoll2015EARLY.pdf
If that is too biased, you will have to give the list of approved outlets. And follow that list yourself, heh...
Re-9
Recent horse race polls seem to be driving the first proposition...plus most of the news media.
It can't be stressed enough that past experience shows that national poll averages at this stage of the game aren't highly predictive of actual outcomes.
There is a positive correlation to be sure, but it is weak. Just slop in the following chart:
https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/enten-pollsarenotpredictive-1.png?w=610&h=703
As Nate Cohn put it over at 538 "Polls Suggest Trump Will Win Between 8 Percent And 64 Percent Of The Vote." That's a pretty big spread.
Another Cohn observation is that poll taken a year earlier in cycle are historically no more predictive than polls taken now!
Michale: Did you look at the poll or just the url? If you had you'd have seen it was a NBC News/WSJ poll.
The WSJ is hardly a friend to the left.
Any references (not opinions) to back up the 4-1 claim?
Thought not.
Re-11
Cohn's entire article is well worth a read.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-suggest-trump-will-win-between-8-percent-and-64-percent-of-the-vote/
Re-13
As Nate Silver puts it:
"Historically, in fact, there has been nearly a one-to-one correspondence between a candidate’s share of media coverage and his share of the vote in the polls. That is, other things held equal, a candidate earning 30 percent in national polls tends to get about 30 percent of the media coverage, while one polling at 10 percent will get 10 percent of it instead. It’s just that simple."
In other words, at this point in a presidential cycle, the media buzz tail wags the pollster dog.
If you want more details backing that up see:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-boom-or-trump-bubble/
Michale: Did you look at the poll or just the url? If you had you'd have seen it was a NBC News/WSJ poll.
Ya' have to ask? That's why I just repackaged the same poll under the WSJ. I figured he wouldn't notice...
TS- 14
Sounds like evidence for the motivation to limit coverage of Bernie... or is somebody claiming he's receiving 30% of the media coverage on the Dem side?
A
Any references (not opinions) to back up the 4-1 claim?
My gut..
And my gut is a LOT more accurate than MSNBC in this regard.. :D
Time will tell who is right and who is wrong..
But let's face it...
Ya'all's track record on predicting Trump's demise is WORSE than my track record on picking SCOTUS rulings.
And THAT says a lot.. :D
Michale
414
When ya'all start buying into Breitbart polls or Limbaugh polls, I'll start buying into MSNBC polls..
Howz that for fair.. :D
Michale
415
When ya'all start buying into Breitbart polls or Limbaugh polls, I'll start buying into MSNBC polls..
But it's not an MSNBC poll, which you would have known had you followed the link. It's a third party poll conducted for NBC/WSJ.
Not that it should matter with your propensity to link to Breitbart...
But it's not an MSNBC poll, which you would have known had you followed the link. It's a third party poll conducted for NBC/WSJ.
NBC?? Brian Williams...
'nuff said...
Not that it should matter with your propensity to link to Breitbart...
Actually, I rarely link to Breitbart polls for the exact reasons I stated that MSNBC links are not worth the electrons they are printed on...
Michale
416
'nuff said...
No, not really. Can you prove the bias in this poll? Is there a problem with the way it was conducted? How about the Wall Street Journal? Are they biaed? Or only when they disagree with your point?
Actually, I rarely link to Breitbart polls for the exact reasons I stated that MSNBC links are not worth the electrons they are printed on...
But you do link to Breitbart often...
*biased*
Re- 14 Historically, punters (bookies and more recently prediction markets = betting shops that give punters better odds) are more accurate than polls at this stage in the election cycle and appear much less susceptible to the news cycle.
My more or less weekly summary of the Betfair Exchange take on the Nomination:
Rubio is still the favorite, with a 40% implied probability of winning the nomination, down a bit from his high of 45%.
Cruz is in second place, at p=22.5%. He has been a steady climber over the past couple of months.
Trump is close behind Cruz with p=21%. Trump got a big bump from Paris, sagged a little bit, bumped up after San Bernardino, and bumped up a bit after the latest favorable polls, but is down today. Trump is the most volatile of the major candidates, but not nearly to the extent that is seen in the polls.
Jeb._ The market says we should not count Bush out entirely. He's been stable for the last few weeks, even trended a bit up. Figure his probability around 10%.
Betfair runs a separate market on who wins the Presidency. It's interesting that the order is somewhat different than the Nomination Market. Rubio is a commanding favorite (17%), but Trump is second at around 9%, Cruz 8% and steadily climbing. Bush rates a 4%. Compare and contrast with the Market's perception of Clinton, about 57%.
One other comment on the markets. As I see it, polls look at now, the Markets look out to the summer.
But you do link to Breitbart often...
I wouldn't even say I link Breitbart "often"...
I link HUFFPOOP more than I link Breitbart...
Michale
418
This is the last one in my series.
I don't pretend to fully understand the Republican primary process. I don't think anybody does, including the Republicans that wrote the rules and the Republicans who have to game the rules to win. It's very complicated.
There are winner take all races, where a plurality gets the candidate all the delegates.
There are some contests that allocate votes proportionally, although proportionality is not according to population size or even Republican population size, and some have triggers that turn them into all or nothing contests if somebody gets more than 50% of the votes. Other races have floors, where anything below 20% doesn't count.
There are winner take most contests, but in practice these are pretty much like winner take all races.
There are apparently still some races where the vote is basically a serving suggestion for a follow-up caucus.
All this seems designed to give the Establishment Wing of the GOP a pretty big thumb on the nomination scales. Just how big is unclear.
@BashiBazouk [#10, #21, #22]
Exactly! Hard to have a reasonable conversation when sources of news are dismissed without specific cause.
Rather like voir dire for a jury, we each get a few dismissals without cause, but at some point, we have to agree on a few to sit as sufficiently objective or at least methodologically transparent and defensible.
I like your proposal in #10. If not WSJ, Politifact, MSNBC, Limbaugh, Brietbart, then whom? And if no source is reasonably acceptable to both sides of an aisle, then any proposition asserted by either side becomes unfalsifiable, in which case there's little chance of a rational conversation.
If a critic is going to dismiss citations based on the writer without offering other sources that we could all consider, then their critique just becomes an True Scotsman argument no matter how dressed up.
We can also make a distinction when an article is transparently editorializing or intending to represent facts objectively. For instance, I may take most of Rush Limbaugh's assertions as editorial ranting but if he cites a study from, say, an academic journal, I'll at least listen and consider the study further by looking at it for myself.
I'm okay if a site like Fox News or Huffington Post clearly is framing their assertions from a editorial bias as long as I can tell what they intend to represent as fact versus opinion and when they give the basis or source for that factual representation.
For one, I nominate Politifact as a sufficiently objective source, primarily because they transparently use other sources to back up their claims. I see no better, more objective source to consider for the kinds of political-claim analysis that they do, but am open if others want to nominate them alongside or in place of Politifact. I am also open to WSJ (I may disagree with some of their editorials but generally their factual reporting is trustworthy). Still another is the Economist.
Those three aren't infallable of course, but are worthy of my presumption that they're at least trying to objectively get their facts right. There are others of course, but let's start there.
What I'm not okay with just dismissing sources out of hand, one after another, without cause or methodological analysis. We have to start somewhere.
RD,
The one constant referral that rarely brings a challenge is RCP....
Michale
420
Politifact has a well-documented Left Wingery bias..
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
Michale
421
Politifact has a well-documented Left Wingery bias..
that sounds a bit like someone else:
"reality has a well-known liberal bias."
~Colbert
Exactly..
A Left Winger's reality is that everything is liberal...
A Right Winger's reality is that everything is conservative..
And then there are those of us in the middle who live in the REAL reality... :D
Michale
422
Michale -
As to the accuracy of your gut feelings... how's President Romney doing in his third year of his first term?
Heh. Couldn't resist.
-CW
As to the accuracy of your gut feelings... how's President Romney doing in his third year of his first term?
Heh. Couldn't resist.
Touche... :D
But, as I mentioned, ya'all's predictions Trump have been far from accurate as well..
Sooo....... :D
Michale
425
But, as I mentioned, ya'all's predictions Trump have been far from accurate as well..
Ya'all's predictions ON Trump have been yada yada yada yada...
Michale
427
@Michale [#28]
Politifact has a well-documented Left Wingery bias..
"Well-documented"? The George Mason's CPMA "study" (link) referred to in the USA Today article was thin. As far as I can tell, there does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal article as the word "study" implies. If anything, it was something on the order of what I posted myself in comments a while back: a mere counting of which party told more falsehoods according to 100 particular examples.
The GM CPMA never states in the entirety of either of its two press releases that it found evidence of bias, per se. It did state that the recorded lies in the same set of items between June 2012 and Sept. 2012 showed that Politifact found more lies by Republicans than Democrats as compared to what the Washington Post's fact checking group did. So not well-documented here.
Others interpreted that Politifact's mere incidence of higher number of falsehoods told by Republicans than Democrats indicated bias on Politifact's part. This is a spurious conclusion. What if, of two people, one always tells lies and the other always tells the truth? When you tell me that, am I to conclude that you're biased against the person you say lies all the time or should I conclude that the person does indeed always lie? By this reasoning, one begs the question that unless the found incidents of lying is always equal then the fact checker is suspiciously biased and therefore, one could never find that one side may indeed lie more. In other words, one would never be capable of saying that Democrats lied more because to do so would invalidate the finding. Absurd.
Further, while the GM CPMA article did not claim that Politifact was biased, they did note that other fact checkers did not have the same numbers as did Politifact. Now mind you, we're talking about a small size over three months, and mind you, no examination of how faithfully the fact checkers checked those facts (how much wood would a wood chuck chuck?). In other words the GW CPMA article merely gave a bare quantitative tallying without any qualitative assessment. So what if Politifact did a better job of reviewing facts than those other fact checkers did?
The USA Today article you offered went beyond the GM CPMA press release and suggested that Politifact was biased but did so merely by casting doubt, not by any analytical claim. So by simply asking the question of if Politifact is biased, we're now to conclude that they are?
I am more than willing to consider that Politifact may be biased. But not on some simplistic basis that their numbers were higher for one party than the other. I am also willing to consider that perhaps another fact checker is better (i.e., less biased), but I'd want to understand how their methodology was different and just why we would consider them to be less biased than Politifact might be.
Do you have other documents to support your assertion of "well-documented... bias" by Politifact that isn't merely derivative of the GM CPMA 2013 article?
(reply to Michale's #28 pending in the filter...)
Clinton trounces your boy in latest poll Michale :)
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-poll-clinton-would-trounce-trump-lose-rubio-carson-n478676
I - can't - believe - I - watched - the - whole - thing....
It was not the best of was not the worst of times. It was rag time. The candidates ragged on Obama the whole evening. Trump was not noticeably attacked.
Seriously, everybody has to stop this "debate" stuff. It demeans everybody: moderators, candidates and the audience.
Clinton trounces your boy in latest poll Michale :)
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-poll-clinton-would-trounce-trump-lose-rubio-carson-n478676
Actually, I am leaning towards Rubio...
But, it's an NBC poll..
'nuff said...
:D
Michale
428
David,
OK, OK, OK... I held my nose and actually LOOKED at the poll you posted..
Hillary gets trounced by Rubio and actually BEATEN by Carson! :D
So, I am not sure that's a poll ya want to be bragging about... :D
Michale
430
Michale[39]:
This is a WSJ poll, so who believes it - Carson beating Hillary - what a joke - do you get all your facts from well run polls by respected news organizations?????? I mean, WSJ? More like WTF?
;)
This is a WSJ poll, so who believes it - Carson beating Hillary - what a joke - do you get all your facts from well run polls by respected news organizations?????? I mean, WSJ? More like WTF?
;)
Touche' :D
Seriously, my caveat on polls is well known...
Michale
434
http://www.nysun.com/national/how-trump-will-foil-the-desperation-prayer-of/89389/
Pretty decent assessment of the issues... :D
I know ya'all will hate it even though it savages Bush... :D
Michale
452
From Confrad Black's Sun article referenced in Michale[42]
"Donald Trump — who, I should disclose, is an old friend, a fine and generous and loyal man, and a delightful companion — is striking very close to the heart of the American problem: the corrupt, dysfunctional political system and the dishonest press. My view, as persevering readers know, is that it all started to go horribly wrong with Watergate, when one of the most successful administrations in the country’s history was torn apart for no remotely adequate reason and the mendacious assassins in the liberal media have been awarding themselves prizes and commendations for 40 years since."
A new one - I've heard that all the bad things were due to the 1960's, moving off the gold standard, or a host of other quack theories - but that over zealous investigation of Watergate and that poor chap Nixon is a new one. Where do these guys think this stuff up :)
A new one - I've heard that all the bad things were due to the 1960's, moving off the gold standard, or a host of other quack theories - but that over zealous investigation of Watergate and that poor chap Nixon is a new one. Where do these guys think this stuff up :)
Considering the malfeasance and Above-The-Law'ness (an old word I just made up) of the current Administration, the man has a point..
Nixon gave us a LOT of wet-dream material for the Left Wingery... You would think the Left could overlook all that illegal stuff..
Like they do with Obama.. :D
Michale
453
Nixon's Achievements:
1. Ending the draft
2. The EPA
3. Title IX
4. Desegregation of Southern schools
5. SALT
6. Ending Vietnam War
7. Ping-pong Diplomacy
8. Ending Bretton-Woods
There were the days when Republicans didn't reject science, were moving away from bigotry, led with the Olive branch rather than 'bomb-them-all' stupidity.
I wait patiently for the real Republican Party to return. Or a new center-right party to emerge from the bigoted, anti-science, anti-intellectual drivel we have to endure from so-called Republicans (RWNBs*) at the moment.
Nixon, like Reagan, would be booed off any Republican stage today.
* Republicans With No Brains :)
Nixon's Achievements:
1. Ending the draft
2. The EPA
3. Title IX
4. Desegregation of Southern schools
5. SALT
6. Ending Vietnam War
7. Ping-pong Diplomacy
8. Ending Bretton-Woods
Like I said.. Left Wingery's wet dreams...
Nixon would be a landslide Democrat Candidate in the here and now.. :D
There were the days when Republicans didn't reject science,
Democrats reject just as much science as Republicans reject...
That's the part you don't get...
Or a new center-right party to emerge from the bigoted, anti-science, anti-intellectual drivel we have to endure from so-called Republicans (RWNBs*) at the moment.
Do you REALLY want to talk about bigotry and anti-science??
Because I have THOUSANDS if not TENS OF THOUSANDS of examples of Left Wing bigotry and anti-science..
This comment of yours alone is RIFE with political bigotry...
But I guess bigotry and anti-science is perfectly acceptable when it comes from the Left, eh? :D
Michale
454
Neil,
Don't get me wrong.. In the political sense, we ALL are bigots...
CW did an excellent commentary on political bigotry a while back....
Michale
455
Democrats reject just as much science as Republicans reject...
Democrats reject the science that doesn't suit their ideological agenda..
How is that any different from what you accuse Republicans of??
Michale
457
OK Michale, I'll bite, which Democratic nominee rejects peer reviewed science and what do they reject?
This has to be something major and generally accepted by mainstream science, similar to the rejection of climate change or evolution by many if not all of the Republican nominees.
neilmcgovern [45] -
I'd add:
* First president to appear on a comedy show on TV ("Laugh-In", Nixon's "Sock it... to me?")
:-)
-CW
Michale: which Democratic nominee rejects peer reviewed science and what do they reject?
This has to be something major and generally accepted by mainstream science, similar to the rejection of climate change or evolution by many if not all of the Republican nominees.
Look up the works of Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen..
Democrats categorically deny their peer reviewed science..
Like I said, Democrats ONLY accept the science that supports their agenda..
Global Warming is a religion to them. And their priests are right and other religion's priests are wrong..
Michale
473
Look up the works of Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen..
Democrats categorically deny their peer reviewed science..
Like I said, Democrats ONLY accept the science that supports their agenda..
Michale
473